This report is focused around Lost and Found data using the intakes and outcomes data received for 2019-2021. Its goal is to reflect everything we could learn about L&F from the available data, make sure the numbers we see make sense, and highlight things that would be useful to show but some/all data required for them are missing.

Date range: 2019-01-01 to 2021-09-30

Report Structure

  1. KPIs: data points that indicate how good the shelter is doing on on L&F. They have numeric goals associated with them.
  2. Supporting data: data points that aren’t a goal themselves but serve as a proxy for improving a goal. For example, the method of RTH is not a performance indicator, but it helps identifying how RTHs take place. The number of strays found per ZIP code is not a metric to improve, but it shows where most strays are coming from to guide resource allocation.
  3. Data notes: the state of the data received from the shelter.
  4. Extra metrics: some ideas for additional L&F metrics and the data points they require.

Scroll down or use the table of contents on the left to navigate throughout the document. Most sections contain multiple tabs showing different facets of a data type. Most plots are interactive, meaning they include tooltips and allow hiding and showing parts and zooming in and out. If something went wrong, look for the house icon in the top right corner of each figure to reset.

KPIs

Yearly RTH Rates by Species

This section provides an overview of the RTH rate per year divided by species.

Overall RTH Rate

This table covers all strays and RTHs. Animals younger than 4 weeks are excluded from stray and RTH calculations. RTH rates shown below are the number of strays with RTO outcome out of all strays.

When we go over this, let’s make sure we calculate the rate the same way you do, so we would want to make sure what we see makes sense. If these numbers are right, they are higher than the national and HASS averages, which are at 30% RTH rate (for dogs), and show a moderate improvement since 2019.

Species Year Strays RTH_Count RTH_Rate
Cat 2019 1554 63 0.04
Cat 2020 1307 59 0.05
Cat 2021 1371 45 0.03
Dog 2019 1498 414 0.28
Dog 2020 1198 361 0.30
Dog 2021 915 313 0.34
Other 2019 219 2 0.01
Other 2020 236 5 0.02
Other 2021 232 6 0.03

Field RTH Rate

This one only counts animals who came in as strays from the field. Normally, we would then split these by RTH method between RTO in the field and in the shelter, but since there only 5 animals with subtype of return in the field, we will just look at the RTH rate as a whole.

The rates for dogs higher than the overall ones (except for 2020), suggesting the RTH of over-the-counter dogs would be lower (next tab). For cats, it is the other way around.

Species Year Strays RTH_Count RTH_Rate
Cat 2019 197 4 0.02
Cat 2020 205 5 0.02
Cat 2021 249 9 0.04
Dog 2019 567 181 0.32
Dog 2020 613 175 0.29
Dog 2021 419 154 0.37
Other 2019 117 2 0.02
Other 2020 144 2 0.01
Other 2021 64 6 0.09

Shelter RTH Rate

This shows the numbers only for strays that were public drop offs. Indeed, the rates are slightly lower than field intakes for dogs (37% vs. 32% in 2021), and slightly higher for cats.

Species Year Strays RTH_Count RTH_Rate
Cat 2019 1443 60 0.04
Cat 2020 1210 58 0.05
Cat 2021 1147 40 0.03
Dog 2019 1138 287 0.25
Dog 2020 692 213 0.31
Dog 2021 533 171 0.32
Other 2020 99 3 0.03

RTH Over Time

These three time series show the RTH rate per month, to show whether there were times with particularly high or low rates as well as the overall trajectory. These figures show only dogs information because there were only 8 RTH cats in 2021.

It seems like the rate has been slowly increasing since January 2019, which is great! For cats, it has been fairly steady with peaks in January through March.

Overall RTH

Field RTH

This is the same figure, but only counting field strays (again, anything marked as ACO pick up). The improvement trend is similar to the overall figure, although mid-2020 seemed to have more lower months before picking up again around the turn of the year. The project checklist indicated that ACOs were expected to reunite animals in the field and were given some of the necessary tools for it only around January 2021 (+/- 2 months) – it is possible that this contributed to this increase.

Shelter RTH

This figure only counts strays who were public drop offs. Here the improvement seems to halt around March 2020 and since then there are some ups and downs, which matches the fact that the yearly rate for these was lower than that of the improving field intakes.

Stray Intakes

This section shows the number of stray intakes over time, as well as the breakdown of strays by field/shelter intake.

Stray Intakes by Month

Dog numbers are pretty steady, suggesting that the differences in RTH rates between months are not a result of differences in intake volume.

Stray Intake Subtypes

Looks like more animals come in from public drop offs (the first and third categories, which seem to be the same but with a little typo). Other than the first three, other values are infrequent.

Length of Stay Differences - RTH v. Other Outcomes

The average difference in length of stay (in days) between strays with RTH outcomes and all other strays is shown in the table below – roughly 15 days for dogs and 17 for cats when looking at the average.

That means that every successful RTH saves 15 days of care on average at Oakland Animal Services, and field RTH would save an extra day or two on average for RTH from the shelter.

This could translate to pretty significant cost savings at scale – assuming a daily cost of care of 30$, if 100 more dogs were returned home in 2021, it would have saved Oakland Animal Services about $48,000 in costs of care. This is a fairly simple calculation, but it gets at the magnitude of the potential benefits.

Species Outcome Count Average_Length_Of_Stay
Cat Other Outcomes 4016 29.94
Cat RTO 167 12.08
Dog Other Outcomes 2504 19.69
Dog RTO 1088 4.30

Supporting Data

Stray Intake and RTH By Found Location - Dogs

The following maps show stray intake and RTH rate by Census tracts to highlight geographical patterns. The first and second tab are similar to previous metrics; the third tab, RTH Gap, shows the number of strays who were not returned home per census tract.

The data in this section includes stray animals for which found addresses were present. We performed this analysis only using 2021 data and can extend it if relevant.

There were 2710 animals with intake type of strays after removing animals DOA and Born in Care. About 300 animals had unusable found locations - primarily “finders house/backyard”, “oakland”, “unknown”, “given to person”, and the shelter (night box or OAS). About 300 additional addresses that included landmarks rather than precise locations (e.g. an abbreviation of a park or lake) and street names only were excluded. This resulted in 2170 animals overall, of which 849 were dogs.

After this filtering, the data below (number of strays, rate of RTH, RTH gap) is shown for 849 dogs of which 292 were RTH. The next section shows the same maps for the cats.

Stray Intake

The area around the airport stands out most clearly.

RTH Rate

Note that the area with the highest stray intake also has among the lowest RTH rate.

RTH Gap

This combines the other two tabs to highlight where most additional RTH potential exists - it shows the number of strays NOT returned to home in each area. As the RTH rate is fairly low in the areas with the highest stray intakes, it looks pretty similar to the first map.

Top 10 Found Locations

Here’s a sneak peak into the top 10 found locations plotted above, to make sure they make sense to you.

Found.Location Count
doolittle and grumman st 94621 Oakland California 16
1239 5th ave 94606 Oakland California 10
2520 church st 94544 Oakland California 10
1441 103rd ave 94603 Oakland California 9
2645 prentiss pl 94601 Oakland California 9
breed and durant 94605 Oakland California 9
1239 78th ave 94601 Oakland California 8
29th ave and international blvd 94601 Oakland California 8
806 union street 94607 Oakland California 8
9321 international boulevard 94603 Oakland California 8

Top 10 Around Airport

These are the top 10 locations in the Census tract 409000 with the highest stray intake in 2021.

Found.Location Count
E. 9th Street / 35th ave 5
35th ave and e 12th st 4
35th Ave / International 3
914 35th Ave 3
E 10th & Santa Maria ct 2
e 9th st 2
1004 Santa Maria 1
1080 29th ave 1
1101 29th Ave 1
1101 29th ave (ND) 1

Stray Intake and RTH By Found Location - Cats

This is similar to the maps above, but for 1321 stray cats of which 46 were RTH.

Stray Intake

The area around the airport stands out most clearly.

RTH Rate

Note that the area with the highest stray intake also has among the lowest RTH rate.

RTH Gap

This combines the other two tabs to highlight where most additional RTH potential exists - it shows the number of strays NOT returned to home in each area. As the RTH rate is fairly low in the areas with the highest stray intakes, it looks pretty similar to the first map.

Top 10 Found Locations

Here’s a sneak peak into the top 10 found locations plotted above, to make sure they make sense to you.

Found.Location Count
doolittle and grumman st 94621 Oakland California 16
1239 5th ave 94606 Oakland California 10
2520 church st 94544 Oakland California 10
1441 103rd ave 94603 Oakland California 9
2645 prentiss pl 94601 Oakland California 9
breed and durant 94605 Oakland California 9
1239 78th ave 94601 Oakland California 8
29th ave and international blvd 94601 Oakland California 8
806 union street 94607 Oakland California 8
9321 international boulevard 94603 Oakland California 8

Top 10 Around Airport

These are the top 10 locations in the Census tract 409000 with the highest stray intake in 2021.

Found.Location Count
E. 9th Street / 35th ave 5
35th ave and e 12th st 4
35th Ave / International 3
914 35th Ave 3
E 10th & Santa Maria ct 2
e 9th st 2
1004 Santa Maria 1
1080 29th ave 1
1101 29th Ave 1
1101 29th ave (ND) 1

Census Data

Map

This map shows different demographic information for Alameda County.

Strays x Income

One example of using both the census data and shelter data is below – there is a negative correlation between stray intakes and median household income, such that there are fewer dogs coming in from areas with higher income.

Strays x Spanish

Another notable pattern is that some of the high-intake areas are also ones with higher concentration of people who speak Spanish but not English (shown in the figure in % in the horizontal axis).

Distances Traveled by Lost Dogs

This section examines animals that had an RTH outcome and both a found location and an outcome address listed to find out how far away do dogs go from home when they get lost (and are found).

Out of the 338 RTH outcomes (with workable found locations), 28 were removed for a lack of owner address or ones out of state. For each dog, the listed intake address and owner addresses were geocoded (using Google’s geolocation service), and then the distance between the two points was calculated. This filtering left a total of 310 animals, 265 dogs.

The distribution of distances is shown in the following figure. The median distance traveled is 0.43 miles (the average is 2.27, but it is a worse indicator because it is sensitive to a few outliers with high distances).

Of 265 are dogs, 61% were found less than a mile away from home (17% around the block and 44% up to a mile), and an extra 25% were within 1-5 miles from home. These are similar to other communities we’ve looked at.

Distance.Category Num.Animals Ratio
5+ Miles 37 14%
1-5 Miles 67 25.3%
More than a Block, Less than 1 Mile 116 43.8%
Up to a Block 45 17%

Microchip Analysis

How many animals come in with a microchip?

The following table breaks it down by species. There are more dogs and coming in microchipped (20.7%) than cats (7%).

Species Microchip Count Ratio
Cat FALSE 1229 93%
Cat TRUE 92 7%
Dog FALSE 673 79.3%
Dog TRUE 176 20.7%

RTH Rate with/out a microchip

This comparison is stronger after also making sure animals compared are similar on other characteristics, such as intake condition and age. But to get a first impression, for cats the RTH rate with chips is 24% compared to 20% without one, whereas for dogs, there is a 76% RTH rate for dogs with microchips vs 24% without chips.

The difference is obviously high, but it is worth also thinking about what might make the ‘yes’ category be at 76% as opposed to 100% (since there is presumably an owner), such as owners refusing, fees, wrong details on the chip, etc.

Species Microchip Strays RTH_Count RTH_Rate
Cat FALSE 1229 24 2%
Cat TRUE 92 22 24%
Dog FALSE 673 159 24%
Dog TRUE 176 133 76%

Microchip Prevalence - Mapping

This section shows the microchip rate (% of animals who came in with a chip) from each Census tract, as well as the number of animals coming with without a microchip from each Census tract.

Dogs - Chip Rate

the following map shows the proportion of animals who came with a chip.

Dogs - Chip Gap

The following map shows the number of strays that came in without a microchip from each area. The areas that stand out tend to overlap with those with the higher stray intake.

Cats - Chip Rate

A similar map for cats; the rates here are expectedly lower.

Cats - Chip Gap

The airport area stands out again due to high intake volume.

Data Notes

  1. Found location - Out of all strays in 2021, only 39 had a found location of the shelter address, which is a reasonable percentage, 32 had the ‘24/7 box’ value, and 157 had to be removed because they did not list an intersection or a street number (but just a street name, for example).

  2. Intake subtype had several values that were in very infrequent use as you could see in the figure above.

  3. Outcome subtype – it looks like Field Return was put to use as an outcome subtype, which is great, but it hasn’t been used much since.

Extra Metrics

Other things we could show if we had the data for it:

  1. Microchip analysis - using a field indicating the microchip scan result upon intake we can show the % of animals coming in with a chip from each area and the RTH rate for animals with/out a chip.
  2. Reason for RTH failure when owner is found (if that is a common occurrence).
  3. Reclaim fees (could be a yes/no to track fee waiving).
  4. Number of public found reports and successful RTH by the public (if this data is accessible to the shelter).

Thanks for reading through, and we’re looking forward to talking through it and thinking about more ways to make this data useful for you.